structural basis of the antiparallel dimerisation of myomesin...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Molecular basis of the C-terminal tail-to-tail assembly of the
sarcomeric filament protein myomesin
Nikos Pinotsis1, Stephan Lange2, Jean-Claude Perriard3, Dmitri I. Svergun1,4
and Matthias Wilmanns1†
1 EMBL-Hamburg c/o DESY, Notkestrasse 85, D-22603 Hamburg, Germany.
2 School of Medicine, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La
Jolla, CA-92093, USA.
3 Institute of Cell Biology, ETH Zurich-Hönggerberg, CH-8093 Zurich,
Switzerland.
4 Institute of Crystallography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky pr. 59,
117333 Moscow, Russia.
† To whom correspondence should be addressed.
E-mail: [email protected]
Character Count: 57,159
Running Title: Architecture of the C-terminal myomesin filament
2
Abstract
Sarcomeric filament proteins display extraordinary properties in terms of
protein length and mechanical elasticity, requiring specific anchoring and
assembly mechanisms. In order to establish the molecular basis of
terminal filament assembly, we have selected the sarcomeric M-band
protein myomesin as a prototypic filament model. The crystal structure of
the myomesin C-terminus, comprising a tandem array of two Ig domains
My12 and My13, reveals a dimeric end-to-end filament of 14.3 nm length.
Although the two domains share the same fold, an unexpected
rearrangement of one β-strand reveals how they are evolved into unrelated
functions, terminal filament assembly (My13) and filament propagation
(My12). The two domains are connected by a six-turn α-helix, of which two
turns are void of any interactions with other protein parts. Thus, the overall
structure of the assembled myomesin C-terminus resembles a three body
beads-on-the-string model with potentially elastic properties. We predict
that the found My12-helix-My13 domain topology may provide a structural
template for the filament architecture of the entire C-terminal Ig domain
array My9-My13 of myomesin.
Keywords: myomesin / muscle sarcomere / M band / filament / protein
assembly.
3
Subject Category: Structural Biology / Cell & Tissue Architecture
4
Introduction
The sarcomeric units of skeletal and cardiac muscles contain one of the most
complex multi-protein assemblies characterized to date. Many of these protein
components, which function either as filaments or filament bridges, are
composed of long arrays of immunoglobulin-like (Ig) and fibronectin type III (Fn)
domains (Kenny et al., 1999; Li et al., 2002; Tskhovrebova and Trinick, 2003;
Williams et al., 2003). Since many of these proteins actively contribute to the
force generating apparatus of muscle cells, they need to have elastic properties
that support reversible conformational changes in response to these forces. As a
prerequisite, these filament systems need to be tightly assembled and anchored
within stable subcellular structures, such as the Z-disk and M-band of the
sarcomeric unit. These processes frequently take place at one or both termini of
the respective sequences.
The giant muscle protein titin is a prototype protein for investigations aimed at
unraveling the underlying molecular mechanisms for filament anchoring,
assembly and elasticity (Lange et al., 2006; Sotomayor and Schulten, 2007;
Watanabe et al., 2002). The molecular basis of the N-terminal telethonin-
mediated assembly of titin in the Z-disk has been recently elucidated (Zou et al.,
2006). However, it is unlikely that this unique arrangement could serve as a
model for the terminal assembly of other sarcomeric filaments. Biochemical data
indicated that the C-terminal M-band portion of titin is crosslinked with myosin
5
and myomesin filaments by yet unknown molecular mechanisms (Obermann et
al., 1996). The potential importance of these interactions has been underlined by
recent studies on targeting the C-terminal M-band region of titin in embryonic
stem cells or animals, revealing extensive defects in myofibrillogenesis and in the
maturation and maintenance of intact sarcomeres (Weinert et al., 2006).
In order to unravel the general molecular principles in the assembly of long
sarcomeric proteins, we have selected the M-band protein myomesin as a
molecular model. Myomesin and M-protein resemble the giant muscle protein
titin in terms of modular domain composition and structure (Labeit et al., 1997;
Vinkemeier et al., 1993). The C-terminal regions of both proteins are composed
of five modular immunoglobulin-like (Ig) domains interspersed at regular
sequence intervals. While myomesin is generally found in all vertebrate striated
muscle types, M-protein is specifically expressed during late embryonic heart
development and appears to be absent in adult slow-twitch muscles, indicating
that these two homologous proteins exhibit different functions (Obermann et al.,
1996). An early model of the M-band displayed myomesin as a filament bridge
connecting myosin with titin (Obermann et al., 1996). However, only recently has
it been demonstrated that the C-terminal domain My13 is involved in myomesin
homodimerization, supporting a functional role of the protein in the cross-linking
of neighboring myosin filaments across the sarcomeric M-band (Lange et al.,
2005). The assembly of C-terminal myomesin has been shown to be direct.
6
We have been able to crystallize a myomesin fragment that comprises the two C-
terminal Ig domains My12 and My13. The crystal structure reveals how the
myomesin C-terminus is end-to-end assembled and forms a molecular filament
of 14.3 nm in length. The central dimeric interface is formed by β-strand A’ of
My13, leading to an intermolecular, antiparallel β-sheet arrangement. In the
preceding domain My12, the equivalent β-strand associates with a different β-
sheet and is involved in filament propagation rather than assembly. The two Ig
domains of each myomesin molecule are connected by a long α-helix, rendering
an overall architecture of the assembled myomesin C-terminus that can be
associated with a three beads-on-the-string model. The overall domain
arrangement is different from other known sarcomeric filaments and could
become a prototype model for future studies to unravel filament assembly,
anchoring and elasticity.
7
Results
Overall structure of the C-terminal filament assembly of myomesin
We determined the crystal structure of the C-terminal domains My12My13
(residues 1459-1667) to a resolution of 2.24 Å (Table 1, Figure 1). Experimental
phases were obtained by the multiple anomalous dispersion (MAD) method,
using a seleno-methionine substituted version of the protein. The structure
comprises a dimeric assembly of two myomesin molecules, of which all except
the N-terminal five residues of the myomesin fragment used for crystallization
were interpreted. In addition, 248 ordered solvent molecules were found in the
electron density.
The structure reveals an end-to-end dimeric assembly of the two My12My13
molecules, generating a filament-like shape with overall dimensions of 14.3 nm x
5.0 nm x 4.1 nm (Figure 1). The two My13 domains form an extensive
antiparallel dimer interface, generating a central two-domain body within the
overall architecture. In contrast, the two My12 domains are located at the two tips
of the structure. Each of them is connected with the My13 domain of the same
molecule by a long α-helix that is partly void of any interactions with the two
adjacent My12 and My13 domains. Thus, an overall arrangement of three rigid
bodies My12, My13/My13 and My12 is generated, resembling a model of three
beads-on-the-string (Figure 1B).
8
Region variance analysis (Schneider, 2002) confirms this interpretation by
identifying two hinges with limited flexibility in symmetric positions, situated at the
C-termini of the two My12My13 connecting helices (Figure 1C). Comparison of
relative domain/domain arrangements (Bork et al., 1996) reveals an almost
identical tilt angle, with a domain rotation along the filament axis of 81 o and 82o
for the two My12My13 molecules, respectively. In contrast, the two twist angles,
which define the angles of the axes of the two individual Ig domains, are 95o and
124o, revealing a substantial difference of 29o (Figure 1C). Because of these tilt
angles, the arrangement of the domains My12 and My13 is far from being linear.
Divergent β-sheet arrangements in domains My12 and My13 support
distinct functions
Both the My12 and My13 domains belong to the I-set category of the Ig-fold,
which has previously been found in several Ig domains of the protein titin (Marino
et al., 2005; Muller et al., 2007; Zou et al., 2006). Apart from local deviations in
distinct loop regions, the structures of these domains are generally closely
related (Marino et al., 2005; Muller et al., 2007). However, when the two My12
and My13 Ig domains are superimposed onto each other (Krissinel and Henrick,
2004), their coordinates differ by 1.92 Å (first molecule) and 1.76 Å (second
molecule) r.m.s. deviation, thus revealing substantial structural differences
(Figure 2). The resulting structure-based alignment comprises only 21% identical
9
amino acids in matching positions (Figure 2A). Direct structural comparison
reveals that the N-termini of the two sequences cannot be aligned. Of note, those
residues of the My12 domain (1461-1464) that approximately match β-strand A
of My13 appear to be in a β-strand-like conformation, but their geometry is too
irregular to be recognized as a β-strand. In addition, β-strand G of My13 is four
residues longer than that in My12. There are also local conformational
differences in loops BC, DE and FG, not allowing a structure-based alignment of
the respective sequence segments. Collectively, these structural deviations lead
to substantial differences of the overall shapes of the two domains (Figure 3),
providing the molecular basis of divergent structural functions of My12 and My13
within the observed end-to-end filament assembly and propagation.
Analysis of the secondary structure topology of the two myomesin Ig domains
reveals that β-strand A’ in My12 is associated with a different Ig β-sheet (A’BED)
than the equivalent β-strand in My13, which participates in the canonical I-set β-
sheet A’GFCC’ (Figure 2B). However, no obvious reason for these structural
differences could be discerned, especially considering the similarity in sequence
specific interactions involving residues from β-strand A’ in both domains (not
shown). The only noticeable difference in My13 is the interaction between
Thr1583 from β-strand A’ and Ser1662 from β-strand G (Figure 2A). In contrast,
Ser1470 from My12, which is equivalent to Thr1583 from My13, interacts with
one of the main chain carbonyls of the My12My13 connecting helix (Figure 4A).
Therefore, the structural swap of strand A’ is most likely caused by the additional
10
interface of the My12 domain with the My12My13 connecting α-helix (details
below). To date, this unusual β-sheet topology has only been described for the
growth factor-binding d5 domain of several Trk receptors (Ultsch et al., 1999), but
has not been found for any sarcomeric protein with long arrays of Ig domains.
The role of the My12My13 connecting helix in C-terminal myomesin
filament formation
The arrangement of the My12 and My13 Ig domains in the C-terminal myomesin
filament is defined by the connecting six-turn α-helix (1549-1570) (Figures 1,
2B). The helix is amphiphilic over its entire length. The hydrophobic face of its N-
terminal part contains an array of aromatic residues (Tyr1551, Tyr1555,
Phe1558), followed by one charged residue (Lys1562). The side chains of these
residues are at the same face of the helical wheel and provide the framework of
an interface with residues from the My12 domain, which is in the order of 540 Å2
(Figures 3A and 4A). In particular, Tyr1551 binds into a deep cleft of the My12
domain, which is formed by several residues from the swapped β−strand A’ and
the FG loop. The only additional polar interactions, observed in this interface, are
two hydrogen bonds, connecting Lys1562 and Glu1520 from the EF loop, and
the main chain carbonyl group of Ala1554 and the hydroxyl group of Ser1470
from the swapped β-strand A’ of the My12 domain. The interface of the N-
terminal part of the helix and the My12 domain is virtually identical in each of the
two myomesin molecules, demonstrating a rigid arrangement.
11
In contrast, the C-terminal part of this connecting α-helix is not involved in lateral
interface interactions with any of the two adjacent Ig domains, thus providing an
exposed spring-like appearance of this part of the helix. Remarkably, the polar
side chains of helix residues Gln1559, Arg1560, Gln1563, Lys1569 and Asn1570
point to the solvent without any interactions to other protein residues. However,
an extensive network of capping interactions occurs at the C-terminus of the
My12My13 connecting helix (Figure 4B). Critical contributions are provided by
residues Arg1571, Arg1573, Trp1597, and Asn1650 from My13. Arg1573 is the
central residue of a negative-positive-negative hydrogen bond network, involving
Glu1568 from the C-terminus of the My12My13 connecting helix. The nature of
the My13/helix interface provides a molecular rational for the observed structural
deviations in the overall architecture of the myomesin dimer, in contrast to the
rigid My12/helix interface (Figure 1C).
The molecular basis of the end-to-end myomesin filament assembly
The central dimeric assembly of the C-terminal myomesin filament is defined by
a symmetric interface, formed by extensive interactions between the two My13
domains (Figure 5). The interface covers an area of about 710 Å2 per molecule,
corresponding to 12% of the entire My13 surface. It can be basically divided in
two parts. The first interaction site is formed by an intermolecular, antiparallel β-
sheet with C’CFGA’-A’GFCC’ topology. The regular β-sheet hydrogen bond
12
pattern extends over residues 1581-1583 from both My13 domains and is
symmetrically flanked by a pair of hydrogen bonds, involving the side chain of
Asp1580. In addition, one ordered solvent molecule is found in the very centre of
the intermolecular β-sheet. The second part of the interface is formed by
equivalent residues of β-strands A and B from both My13 domains. The β-
strands of the second interaction site are, however, not properly oriented to
support regular β-sheet interactions. Instead, four symmetrical pairs of separate
hydrogen bond pairs are formed: two involving interactions between the C-
terminus of β-strand A (Gly1577) and residues from β-strand B (Asn1589,
Asn1591); one between residues of β-strand B (Asn1589, Thr1593); and a
flanking hydrogen bond by Asp1580 and Lys1588. Moreover, this part of the
interface is highly solvated, with a total of 2 x 5 ordered solvent pairs observed in
the X-ray structure. The symmetric arrangement of solvent molecules in this
interface is remarkable, considering the limited resolution of the structure and the
lack of any non-crystallographic symmetry constraints or restraints imposed upon
the structure during structure refinement.
Validation of the molecular architecture of the My12My13 dimer
Although the described myomesin dimeric assembly is the most prominent within
the crystal form used for structure determination, other dimeric assemblies can
also be generated in the crystal lattice (Figure 6). To validate the dimeric
arrangement in solution, small angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) was employed. The
13
scattering pattern computed from the My13-mediated dimer matches the
experimental SAXS data with a χ2 value of 1.58, while other potential dimeric
assemblies generated from the crystal lattice yielded much poorer fits. Therefore,
the SAXS analysis confirms the presence of an end-to-end filament dimer of the
myomesin C-terminus that is assembled by the terminal My13 domains.
Further, we mutated two residues (Asp1580 and Lys1588) that form a direct
hydrogen bond within the My13 dimerization interface (Figure 5) into residues
with opposite charges (Asp1580, Lys1588). Since these two residues make
critical contributions to the myomesin dimer interface, we expected that charge
reversal of one would diminish or even abolish the entire binding interface. Size
exclusion chromatography indeed indicated that both mutants elute with an
apparent molecular weight of a monomer (Figure 7A), in contrast to wild-type
myomesin. Moreover, SAXS data collected from the two mutants are most
compatible with a monomeric association state (Figure 7B-C, Table 2). In
addition to confirming the crystal structure of My12My13 dimer, the gel filtration
and SAXS data obtained with the mutants reveal that the Asp1580-Lys1588
hydrogen bond within the My13 dimer interface is essential for myomesin
homodimerization. The analysis of these mutants also implies that the formation
of the antiparallel β-sheet by β-strands A’ from each molecule is not sufficient for
constitutive dimer assembly.
14
It is noteworthy mentioning that in comparison to the K1588D mutant, the SAXS
distance distribution function of D1580K is more skewed and suggests the
presence of a residual fraction of dimer assembly (Table 2). However, given that
the same mutant also shows an additional shoulder in the gel filtration (Figure
7A), we cannot rule out that the effect may be due to another, unknown
abnormality of the solution properties of this mutant.
In an attempt to test for the dimerization ability of the different combinations of
the myomesin C-terminus (wild-type, D1580K, K1588D) we also carried out
pulldown experiments using polyhistidine-tagged versions of the three variants
(Figure 7D). For all combinations with predicted charge repulsion in the interface
(wild-type/D1580K; wild-type/K1588D; D1580K/D1580K; K1588D/K1588D),
dimer binding was found to be either largely diminished or completely abolished.
Intriguingly, the double mutant D1580K/K1588D was able to partially dimerize,
indicating that the dual charge reversal in residues Asp1580 and Lys1588 may
allow partial restoration of the My13 dimer interface.
Discussion
Ig-domain mediated filament assembly and propagation
15
The architecture of the C-terminal myomesin My12My13 dimer reveals the
molecular basis of a novel type of terminal filament assembly and propagation by
a sarcomeric model filament. Our structural findings are consistent with previous
yeast two-hybrid interaction and biochemical data, demonstrating direct C-
terminal assembly of myomesin via the My13 domain (Lange et al., 2005).
However, taking into account that more than one half of a total of 13 myomesin
domain modules consist of Ig domains, including two (My2, My3) within the N-
terminal region and an array of five Ig domains (My9-My13) from the C-terminus
of myomesin, the molecular origin of the specific ability of My13 for dimeric
assembly remained elusive. Specific My13-mediated myomesin assembly also
raises an important question about the underlying molecular parameters of
sorting, avoiding unwanted fortuitous assembly with other Ig domains. Moreover,
although myomesin filament cross-linking was considered to be similar to α-
actinin links (Lange et al., 2005), there have been no data available, to date,
providing a molecular model of myomesin filament propagation from the C-
terminal assembly.
The crystal structure of the C-terminal myomesin dimer reveals how two domains
that both belong to the same I-set Ig domain category perform different functions
within the context of a large structural protein, leading filament assembly (My13)
and propagation (My12). In order to detect specific structural differences within
the two Ig domains My12 and My13, we made use of previously defined
structural markers of this fold (Chothia and Jones, 1997). One of the specific
16
features of the I-set family of Ig domains is the presence of an additional β-strand
A’. In the canonical I-set arrangement, this strand interacts with the second β-
sheet of A’GFC topology while the preceding β-strand A associates with the first
Ig domain β-sheet of ABED topology.
Structural comparison of the My12 and My13 Ig domains has identified the N-
terminal sequence segment as the most divergent region (Figure 2). The
difference is highlighted by an unexpected swapped association of β-strand A’ in
the myomesin My12 domain, using the My13 arrangement and other canonical I-
set Ig domains from titin (Marino et al., 2005; Muller et al., 2007) as reference.
The different β-sheet association of this strand in domains My12 and My13 leads
to distinct structural functions of residues from β-strand A’. While in My12, the
strand is critically involved in the formation of an intramolecular interface with the
My12My13 connecting α-helix, in My13 the same strand forms an intermolecular
antiparallel β-sheet arrangement over six residues with the equivalent strand of
the second myomesin My13 domain (Figure 4, 5B).
However, since this My13/My13 β-sheet is formed by main chain atom
interactions, this type of interface on its own may not be sufficient to avoid
fortuitous β-sheet assembly with other I-set Ig domains from myomesin or
different sarcomeric filament proteins. The structure of the My12My13 dimer and
biochemical validation data demonstrate that additional sequence specific
17
interactions, originating from residues on β-strands A and B, are essential for the
formation of the My13 dimerization interface (Figure 4B). For instance,
abolishment of the charged hydrogen bond by Asp1580 and Lys1588 impairs
My13-mediated terminal myomesin dimer assembly (Figure 7).
In contrast, the swapped β-sheet association of β-strand A’ in My12 does not
support the formation of a My13-like dimer interface by the My12 domain. Thus,
our present data demonstrate how specific structural rearrangements in domains
with an identical fold can lead to different functional readouts, either My13-
mediated myomesin filament assembly or the formation of a specific helix
interface by My12 that provides the structural basis of filament propagation within
the My12My13 dimer. Moreover, comparison of the sequences of My12 and
further preceding Ig domains from myomesin (My9, My10, My11) does not reveal
any conservation of residues involved in the My13 dimer interface (data not
shown), thus making it unlikely that any these domains may have the ability to
form a My13-like dimer interface.
The My12My13 structure displays the propagation of single myomesin filaments,
originating from the C-terminal My13 end-to-end assembly. Our data are in
agreement with previous in vivo and biochemical data that point to the presence
of single myomesin filament strands rather than oligomeric rod assemblies
(Lange et al., 2005; Obermann et al., 1996). In contrast, even though Ig domain-
mediated terminal assemblies have been demonstrated in filamentous proteins
18
like titin and different filamin isoforms (McCoy et al., 1999; Popowicz et al., 2004;
Pudas et al., 2005; Zou et al., 2006) it is unlikely or unknown whether the
antiparallel arrangement of the assembly site propagates throughout the
remaining filament of these proteins. Based on structural data of human filamin
C, a flexible hinge region near the dimerization module was proposed (Pudas et
al., 2005). This model attempted to reconcile the observed antiparallel assembly
of the C-terminal domain observed in the crystal structure with previous electron
microscopy data that supported a parallel rod arrangement. However, in the C-
terminal myomesin filament the structural rigidity of the Ig domain connecting α-
helical linker does not allow comparable bending, which could lead to a reversal
of the overall filament orientation. The concept of single filament propagation for
myomesin is also unrelated to the type of filament formation in α-actinin, which is
oligomeric and formed by α-helical coiled coil domains instead of Ig domains
(Djinovic-Carugo et al., 1999). Interestingly, the individual domains of the α-
actinin rod R1-R4 are also connected by α-helical linkers, which are, however,
short and not exposed to the external solvent over several residues.
Does the My12My13 connecting helix function as an elastic spring?
Intensive research on the molecular parameters leading to passive elasticity of
the giant muscle protein titin has revealed that the flexible “PEVK” regions within
the I-band segment give rise to most of the protein’s elastic properties, while the
involvement of folded Ig or Fn domains remains controversial (Preetha et al.,
19
2005; Tskhovrebova et al., 2005). Similar to titin, a recent model also postulated
a molecular requirement for elastic properties in myomesin, in order to build
flexible bridges to the titin and myosin filaments under substantial external force
conditions in vivo (Agarkova and Perriard, 2005). Recent data, using single-
molecule force spectroscopy and transmission electron microscopy,
demonstrated that the Embryonic Heart (EH)-segment within the central part of
the EH-isoform of myomesin may act as an entropic spring (Bertoncini et al.,
2005; Schoenauer et al., 2005). However, the entire C-terminal Ig domain array
My9-My13 of myomesin, in the absence of high-resolution structural data, has
not been investigated in terms of potential elastic properties of the protein, to
date.
Nonetheless, the structure of the dimeric My12My13 filament provides an
unexpected model to test molecular elasticity of the C-terminal part of myomesin.
In contrast to other known Ig domain arrays with available 3D structures (Mrosek
et al., 2007; Muller et al., 2007; Zou et al., 2006), domains My12 and My13 of
myomesin are linked by an α-helix, of which about one half is void of any
interactions with other protein residues of the myomesin C-terminus (Figure 8).
This finding is remarkable considering that fully exposed α-helices are not
commonly found as domain connecting elements in soluble proteins. Indeed,
they are like a mechanical coiled spring, universally used in natural processes
requiring elasticity (Chouaieb et al., 2006).
20
In contrast to amphiphilic or hydrophobic helices, which are generally either
embedded in side-wise interactions with other protein residues or are assembled
into coiled coils, the mechanical stability of a structurally separate helix, like that
observed for the C-terminal part of the My12My13 connecting helix, is solely
determined by the internal α-helical hydrogen bond pattern. Previous
measurements revealed that only low mechanical forces below 30 pN are
required to disrupt the internal hydrogen bond pattern (Choe and Sun, 2005;
Root et al., 2006). Previous experimental and computational data, investigating
the mechanical stability of the cytoskeletal protein spectrin are consistent with
our hypotheses, as they demonstrate a distinct and reversible stretching-out
pattern of α-helical linker regions under low external force conditions (Law et al.,
2003; Rief et al., 1999). Considering the exposure of myomesin to external forces
within sarcomeres (Agarkova and Perriard, 2005), the mechanic stability of such
helical linker may be inferior to that of domain/domain arrangements investigated
previously or comparable to the measured elastic properties of the EH-region
(Bertoncini et al., 2005; Schoenauer et al., 2005). Similar investigations for the C-
terminal myomesin filament, taking advantage of the structural knowledge of the
domain/domain linkers in My12My13, are eagerly awaited. However, such
studies will require an extension of the present analysis of the C-terminal
My12My13 fragment into a larger array of C-terminal myomesin Ig domains.
My12My13 as model for a repetitive filament architecture in myomesin
21
Using a suite of secondary structure prediction programs (Rost et al., 2004), the
length and the position of the My12My13-connecting helix can be accurately
predicted with high confidence values (Figure 8C). Extending our analysis over
the entire C-terminal half of the myomesin sequence, spanning five Ig domains
(My9-My13), we predict a repetitive pattern of α-helices at basically identical
sequence intervals of about 110 residues (Figure 8C), also with high confidence
values. The predicted helices are consistently located in sequence segments
between myomesin Ig-domains My9-My13. The prediction is supported by
circular dichroism spectra of the myomesin fragments My12My13 and My9-My13
(Figure 8C). Both constructs show an significant α-helical content of about 20%.
We are not aware about a similar pattern reported for any other sarcomeric
protein.
Thus, the above findings support the emergence of an attractive filament model
of a repetitive array of Ig domain/linker repeats, which may form the molecular
basis of the filament architecture of myomesin over long distances (Lange et al.,
2005; Obermann et al., 1996). Previous immunoelectron microscopy data found
that the N-terminal part of myomesin is located at or close to the symmetric M4
and M4’ lines of the sarcomeric M band, while domains of the C-terminal Ig
domain array of myomesin are located between the two lines (Obermann et al.,
1996). Recent biochemical data (Lange et al., 2005) and our present data,
demonstrating C-terminal dimeric assembly of myomesin, therefore suggest that
the C-terminal half of myomesin, spanning domains My9-My13, functions as a
22
bridging filament. Such filament would allow to connect protein components with
myomesin interaction sites that have been found in the M4/M4’ lines, such as
creatine kinase (Hornemann et al., 2003) and titin (Obermann et al., 1997),
across the central M line through the C-terminal myomesin filament.
A repetitive domain structure for My9-My13 is expected to lead to a dimeric
myomesin end-to-end filament with a total of 4 x 2 Ig domain/helix modules (My9,
My10, My11, My12) and one central My13 dimerization unit. If we estimate each
domain module to be in the order of 6 nm in length, using the My12My13 crystal
structure and the SAXS distribution function as reference (Figures 1 and 7C),
such myomesin My9-My13 filament would be about 55 nm long, assuming a fully
extended arrangement of adjacent domains. However, since our structural data
indicate a filament with twist angles that would considerably deviate from a linear
arrangement (Figure 1), such a filament may approach the estimated M4/M4’
distance of 44 nm in the relaxed sarcomere state.
At present, the lack of available experimental data of the C-terminal myomesin Ig
domain array beyond the My12My13 fragment prevents further speculations. In
order to confirm the molecular filament architecture of the entire C-terminal Ig
array of myomesin, therefore, a combination of high resolution structural biology
methods and solution methods, allowing molecular imaging in vitro and in vivo,
will be required. Should the presence of an array of repetitive Ig domains-helix
linker elements be experimentally confirmed, the C-terminal myomesin filament
23
could become a unique model system to study molecular mechanisms of protein
elasticity mediated by long distance filament cross-linkers under physiological
conditions.
Experimental Procedures
Protein expression and purification
The DNA sequence (Q6H969_HUMAN) encoding for myomesin domains
My12My13 (residues 1459-1667) was amplified by PCR from existing constructs
(Lange et al., 2005), using primers to generate XhoI and MluI sites at the 5' and
3' ends, respectively. The DNA fragments were digested and inserted into a
modified pET22b(+) vector (Novagen) carrying an N-terminal polyhistidine-tag
sequence and a TEV protease cleavage site. The My12My13 fragment and the
versions of its two single point mutants D1580K and K1588D were
overexpressed in the E. coli strain BL21(DE3) and induced with 1 mM IPTG. For
production of the seleno-L-methionine (SeMet)-incorporated My12My13 domain
construct, the corresponding expression vector was used to transform the
methionine auxotroph E. coli strain B834(DE3). A preculture grown in LB broth
medium was washed with M9 minimal medium and resuspended in 1.5 l of
medium A (M9 supplied with 20 mM D-(+)-glucose, 1 mM MgCl2, 0.3 mM CaCl2,
4 μM biotin, 2.7 μM thiamine) and trace element solution (0.3 mM FeCl3·6H2O,
0.06 mM ZnCl2, 0.008 mM CuCl2·4H2O, 0.004 mM CoCl2·6H2O, 0.016 mM
24
H3BO3, 0.0007 mM MnCl2·6H2O). The cells were grown at 310K for 3 hours
(starvation step) prior to adding the L-amino acids mixture (40 μg ml-1 of each
amino acid, except methionine) and SeMet (60 μg ml-1). When the culture
entered the logarithmic phase of growth, it was induced with 1 mM IPTG, and
grown overnight. All proteins were purified from crude cell extracts using Ni-NTA
affinity chromatography, followed by removal of the hexahistidine-tag by TEV
protease. The proteins were further purified by size exclusion chromatography,
using a Superdex 200 column (16/60 or 10/30), equilibrated with 25 mM Tris/HCl,
pH 7.5, and 150 mM NaCl. The wild type and Se-Met version of My12My13
eluted with an apparent molecular weight of approximately 48 kDa, matching the
molecular weight of a dimer, while the single point mutants were eluted as
monomers.
X-ray structure determination and interpretation
The myomesin My12My13 fragment was crystallized by the hanging-drop vapor
diffusion technique. 1 μl of about 10 mg⋅ml-1 of protein solution was mixed with 1
μl of 14% (w/v) PEG 20000, 0.1 M Bis-Tris, pH 7.5, and 0.16 M ammonium
acetate, and suspended above a reservoir of the same solution. Crystals of a
trigonal shape appeared the next day and grew to an optimal size of about 200 x
200 x 50 μm3 within one week. They were identified to belong to space group
C2221, containing two copies of the molecule per asymmetric unit, with a solvent
content of 56.5% (Matthews, 1968).
25
A multiple wavelength anomalous dispersion (MAD) experiment using the SeMet
protein was carried out on the tunable wiggler beamline BW7A (EMBL/DESY,
Hamburg, Germany) and a native data set was collected on the bending magnet
beamline X11 (EMBL/DESY, Hamburg, Germany). Prior to data collection, the
crystals were immersed in the mother liquid containing 18% [v/v] MPD, and flash
cooled at 100 K under the cryostream attached to the goniometer. All data sets
were integrated, scaled, and merged using the HKL suite (Otwinowski, 1997).
The expected two selenium atoms were located using the heavy atom search
routine of the CNS program suite (Brunger et al., 1998). These positions were
refined; initial phases of the protein were calculated to 3.1 Å resolution, and
density modification was applied, improving the figure of merit from 0.455 to
0.898 as defined in CNS (Brunger et al., 1998). The electron density map was of
sufficient quality to fit the titin module M5 NMR model (PDB code: 1NCT) by
phased molecular replacement (Murshudov et al., 1997) at the two positions of
the domain My13. The remaining model was built manually using the program 'O'
(Jones et al., 1991). Further refinement using molecular dynamics (CNS)
resulted in a map where the entire protein model, except for the first five
disordered residues, could be built. Solvent molecules were added by
ARP/wARP (Perrakis et al., 2001) and the final cycles of refinement were carried
out through REFMAC5, using TLS refinement of rigid groups (Winn et al., 2001).
The data collection and refinement statistics are reported in Table 1.
26
A structure-based sequence alignment was computed by SSM (Krissinel and
Henrick, 2004). Protein/protein interfaces were determined with the program
AREAIMOL of the CCP4 suite (Collaborative Computational Project, 1994).
Secondary structural elements were determined by PROCHECK (Laskowski et
al., 1993).
Small angle X-ray scattering analysis
Measurements were carried out at the beamline X33 (EMBL/DESY, Hamburg,
Germany). Each sample was exposed to X-rays of wavelength λ=1.5 Å for 3
minutes, and the signal was recorded on a MAR345 IP detector. The
measurements were carried out at 290 K using a sample-detector distance of 2.7
m, with a momentum transfer range of 0.10 nm-1 < s < 4.5 nm-1 (here, s = 4π
sin(θ)/λ where 2θ is the scattering angle). All myomesin samples were measured
at, at least, two different concentrations with intermittent buffer solution (25 mM
Tris/HCl, pH 7.5, and 150 mM NaCl). To monitor radiation damage, two
consecutive 2-minute exposures at the highest protein concentration were
compared. The data were processed using standard procedures, corrected for
buffer contribution, and extrapolated to infinite dilution using the program
PRIMUS (Konarev et al., 2003). The radius of gyration Rg and forward scattering
I(0), the maximum particle dimension Dmax, and the distance distribution function
p(r) were evaluated using the program GNOM (Svergun, 1992). The molecular
masses of the different constructs were calculated by comparing with the
27
reference BSA samples. The scattering patterns from the high-resolution models
were calculated using the program CRYSOL (Svergun et al., 1995). The best fits
in terms of mixtures of monomers and dimers for My12My13 mutants were
computed using the program OLIGOMER (Konarev et al., 2003).
The discrepancy of the experimental data was calculated as:
∑⎥⎥⎦
⎤
⎢⎢⎣
⎡ −−
=j j
jcalcj
sscIsI
N
2
exp2
)()()(
11
σχ
where N is the number of experimental points, c is a scaling factor, and Icalc(s)
and σ(sj) are the calculated intensity and the experimental error at the
momentum transfer sj, respectively. The SAXS data statistics are summarized in
Table 2.
Circular dichroism measurements
The myomesin fragments My12My13 and My9-My13 were dialyzed against 30
mM potassium phosphate, pH 7.5. The concentration of each sample was
determined by measuring the absorbance of the proteins, which were diluted with
8M urea. Far-UV circular dichroism (CD) spectra were obtained on station 12.1 at
the Synchrotron Radiation Source, Daresbury Laboratory, UK. Experiments were
performed at a temperature 277 K and a wavelength range of 280-175 nm. The
28
spectra were analyzed with the CONTIN procedure (Provencher and Glockner,
1981).
Biochemical characterization
GFP-labeled myomesin My9-My13 constructs (residues 1134-1685) were
generated via PCR and subcloned into the pEGFP-C1 vector (Clontech). Site-
directed mutagenesis to produce the D1580K and the K1588D mutants was
carried out as per the Quickchange protocol (Stratagene). All constructs and
mutants were verified by sequencing. For the pull-down assay, Cos-1 cells were
transfected with the GFP constructs using Escort IV (Sigma), and expression
was measured after 2 days. Cells were lysed in IP-buffer (150 mM NaCl, 10 mM
Tris-HCl, pH 7.9, 1 mM DTT, 0.2% NP-40, 1x Roche Protease Inhibitor Cocktail),
sonicated briefly, and centrifuged at 4°C to separate the soluble and insoluble
cell fractions. The soluble Cos-lysate fraction was incubated with His-tagged
My12My13(wild type), My12My13(D1580K), or My12My13(K1588D) bound to Ni-
NTA beads (Qiagen) for 2 hours on ice. Beads were washed three times with ice-
cold IP buffer and samples were processed for SDS-PAGE followed by
immunoblotting. Visualization of GFP-tagged proteins was done using the
monoclonal mouse anti-GFP antibody (Roche) followed by a horseradish
peroxidase coupled rabbit anti-mouse antibody (DAKO).
Acknowledgments
29
We thank P.V. Konarev for supporting the SAXS experiments at beamline X33
(EMBL/DESY, Hamburg, Germany), D.T. Clarke and A. Brown for supporting the
CD experiments at beamline CD12 (Daresbury) as well as the CCLRC Daresbury
Laboratory’s Synchrotron Radiation Source for financial support. N.P. and S.L.
were supported by the EU research and training network CAMKIN (HPRN-CT-
2002-00252) to M. W. and Prof. Mathias Gautel, respectively. The project was
also supported by a grant of the FWF (P19060-B12). We thank Mathias Gautel,
Elisabeth Ehler, and Irina Agarkova for critical suggestions and fruitful
discussions.
Accession Numbers
The coordinates and the structure factors were deposited in the Protein Data
Bank with accession code 2R15.
30
References
Agarkova, I. and Perriard, J.C. (2005) The M-band: an elastic web that
crosslinks thick filaments in the center of the sarcomere. Trends Cell
Biol, 15, 477-485.
Bertoncini, P., Schoenauer, R., Agarkova, I., Hegner, M., Perriard, J.C. and
Guntherodt, H.J. (2005) Study of the mechanical properties of
myomesin proteins using dynamic force spectroscopy. J Mol Biol,
348, 1127-1137.
Bork, P., Downing, A.K., Kieffer, B. and Campbell, I.D. (1996) Structure
and distribution of modules in extracellular proteins. Q Rev Biophys,
29, 119-167.
Brunger, A.T., Adams, P.D., Clore, G.M., DeLano, W.L., Gros, P., Grosse-
Kunstleve, R.W., Jiang, J.S., Kuszewski, J., Nilges, M., Pannu, N.S.,
Read, R.J., Rice, L.M., Simonson, T. and Warren, G.L. (1998)
Crystallography & NMR system: A new software suite for
macromolecular structure determination. Acta Crystallogr D Biol
Crystallogr, 54, 905-921.
Choe, S. and Sun, S.X. (2005) The elasticity of alpha-helices. J Chem
Phys, 122, 244912.
31
Chothia, C. and Jones, E.Y. (1997) The molecular structure of cell
adhesion molecules. Annu Rev Biochem, 66, 823-862.
Chouaieb, N., Goriely, A. and Maddocks, J.H. (2006) Helices. Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A, 103, 9398-9403.
Collaborative Computational Project, N. (1994) The CCP4 Suite: Programs
for Protein Crystallography. Acta Cryst., D50, 760-763.
Djinovic-Carugo, K., Young, P., Gautel, M. and Saraste, M. (1999)
Structure of the alpha-actinin rod: molecular basis for cross-linking of
actin filaments. Cell, 98, 537-546.
Hornemann, T., Kempa, S., Himmel, M., Hayess, K., Furst, D.O. and
Wallimann, T. (2003) Muscle-type creatine kinase interacts with
central domains of the M-band proteins myomesin and M-protein. J
Mol Biol, 332, 877-887.
Jones, T.A., Zou, J.Y., Cowan, S.W. and Kjeldgaard. (1991) Improved
methods for binding protein models in electron density maps and the
location of errors in these models. Acta Crystallogr A, 47, 110-119.
Kenny, P.A., Liston, E.M. and Higgins, D.G. (1999) Molecular evolution of
immunoglobulin and fibronectin domains in titin and related muscle
proteins. Gene, 232, 11-23.
32
Konarev, P.V., Volkov, V., V., Sokolova, A.V., Koch, M.H.J. and Svergun,
D.I. (2003) PRIMUS: a Windows PC-based system for small-angle
scattering data analysis. J Appl Cryst, 36, 1277-1282.
Krissinel, E. and Henrick, K. (2004) Secondary-structure matching (SSM),
a new tool for fast protein structure alignment in three dimensions.
Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr, 60, 2256-2268.
Labeit, S., Kolmerer, B. and Linke, W.A. (1997) The giant protein titin.
Emerging roles in physiology and pathophysiology. Circ Res, 80,
290-294.
Lange, S., Ehler, E. and Gautel, M. (2006) From A to Z and back?
Multicompartment proteins in the sarcomere. Trends Cell Biol, 16,
11-18.
Lange, S., Himmel, M., Auerbach, D., Agarkova, I., Hayess, K., Furst,
D.O., Perriard, J.C. and Ehler, E. (2005) Dimerisation of myomesin:
implications for the structure of the sarcomeric M-band. J Mol Biol,
345, 289-298.
Laskowski, R.A., MacArthur, M.W., Moss, D.S. and Thornton, J.M. (1993)
PROCHECK: a program to check the stereochemical quality of
protein structures. J Appl Cryst, 26, 283-291.
33
Law, R., Carl, P., Harper, S., Dalhaimer, P., Speicher, D.W. and Discher,
D.E. (2003) Cooperativity in forced unfolding of tandem spectrin
repeats. Biophys J, 84, 533-544.
Li, H., Linke, W.A., Oberhauser, A.F., Carrion-Vazquez, M., Kerkvliet, J.G.,
Lu, H., Marszalek, P.E. and Fernandez, J.M. (2002) Reverse
engineering of the giant muscle protein titin. Nature, 418, 998-1002.
Marino, M., Svergun, D.I., Kreplak, L., Konarev, P.V., Maco, B., Labeit, D.
and Mayans, O. (2005) Poly-Ig tandems from I-band titin share
extended domain arrangements irrespective of the distinct features
of their modular constituents. J Muscle Res Cell Motil, 26, 355-365.
Matthews, B.W. (1968) Solvent content of protein crystals. J Mol Biol, 33,
491-497.
McCoy, A.J., Fucini, P., Noegel, A.A. and Stewart, M. (1999) Structural
basis for dimerization of the Dictyostelium gelation factor (ABP120)
rod. Nat Struct Biol, 6, 836-841.
Mrosek, M., Labeit, D., Witt, S., Heerklotz, H., von Castelmur, E., Labeit, S.
and Mayans, O. (2007) Molecular determinants for the recruitment of
the ubiquitin-ligase MuRF-1 onto M-line titin. Faseb J.
Muller, S., Lange, S., Gautel, M. and Wilmanns, M. (2007) Rigid
Conformation of an Immunoglobulin Domain Tandem Repeat in the
A-band of the Elastic Muscle Protein Titin. J Mol Biol, 371, 469-480.
34
Murshudov, G.N., Vagin, A.A. and Dodson, E.J. (1997) Refinement of
macromolecular structures by the maximum-likelihood method. Acta
Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr, 53, 240-255.
Obermann, W.M., Gautel, M., Steiner, F., van der Ven, P.F., Weber, K. and
Furst, D.O. (1996) The structure of the sarcomeric M band:
localization of defined domains of myomesin, M-protein, and the
250-kD carboxy-terminal region of titin by immunoelectron
microscopy. J Cell Biol, 134, 1441-1453.
Obermann, W.M., Gautel, M., Weber, K. and Furst, D.O. (1997) Molecular
structure of the sarcomeric M band: mapping of titin and myosin
binding domains in myomesin and the identification of a potential
regulatory phosphorylation site in myomesin. Embo J, 16, 211-220.
Otwinowski, Z., Minor, V. (1997) Processing of X-ray diffraction data
collected in oscillation mode. Meth. Enzym., 276, 307-326.
Perrakis, A., Harkiolaki, M., Wilson, K.S. and Lamzin, V.S. (2001)
ARP/wARP and molecular replacement. Acta Crystallogr D Biol
Crystallogr, 57, 1445-1450.
Popowicz, G.M., Muller, R., Noegel, A.A., Schleicher, M., Huber, R. and
Holak, T.A. (2004) Molecular structure of the rod domain of
dictyostelium filamin. J Mol Biol, 342, 1637-1646.
35
Preetha, N., Yiming, W., Helmes, M., Norio, F., Siegfried, L. and Granzier,
H. (2005) Restoring force development by titin/connectin and
assessment of Ig domain unfolding. J Muscle Res Cell Motil, 26,
307-317.
Provencher, S.W. and Glockner, J. (1981) Estimation of globular protein
secondary structure from circular dichroism. Biochemistry, 20, 33-37.
Pudas, R., Kiema, T.R., Butler, P.J., Stewart, M. and Ylanne, J. (2005)
Structural basis for vertebrate filamin dimerization. Structure, 13,
111-119.
Rief, M., Pascual, J., Saraste, M. and Gaub, H.E. (1999) Single molecule
force spectroscopy of spectrin repeats: low unfolding forces in helix
bundles. J Mol Biol, 286, 553-561.
Root, D.D., Yadavalli, V.K., Forbes, J.G. and Wang, K. (2006) Coiled-coil
nanomechanics and uncoiling and unfolding of the superhelix and
alpha-helices of myosin. Biophys J, 90, 2852-2866.
Rost, B., Yachdav, G. and Liu, J. (2004) The PredictProtein server. Nucleic
Acids Res, 32, W321-326.
Schneider, T.R. (2002) A genetic algorithm for the identification of
conformationally invariant regions in protein molecules. Acta
Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr, 58, 195-208.
36
Schoenauer, R., Bertoncini, P., Machaidze, G., Aebi, U., Perriard, J.C.,
Hegner, M. and Agarkova, I. (2005) Myomesin is a molecular spring
with adaptable elasticity. J Mol Biol, 349, 367-379.
Sotomayor, M. and Schulten, K. (2007) Single-molecule experiments in
vitro and in silico. Science, 316, 1144-1148.
Svergun, D., Barberato, C. and Koch, M.H.J. (1995) CRYSOL - a Program
to Evaluate X-ray Solution Scattering of Biological Macromolecules
from Atomic Coordinates. J Appl Cryst, 28, 768-773.
Svergun, D.I. (1992) Determination of the regularization parameter in
indirect-transform methods using perceptual criteria. J Appl Cryst,
25, 495-503.
Tskhovrebova, L., Houmeida, A. and Trinick, J. (2005) Can the passive
elasticity of muscle be explained directly from the mechanics of
individual titin molecules? J Muscle Res Cell Motil, 26, 285-289.
Tskhovrebova, L. and Trinick, J. (2003) Titin: properties and family
relationships. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 4, 679-689.
Ultsch, M.H., Wiesmann, C., Simmons, L.C., Henrich, J., Yang, M., Reilly,
D., Bass, S.H. and de Vos, A.M. (1999) Crystal structures of the
neurotrophin-binding domain of TrkA, TrkB and TrkC. J Mol Biol,
290, 149-159.
37
Vinkemeier, U., Obermann, W., Weber, K. and Furst, D.O. (1993) The
globular head domain of titin extends into the center of the
sarcomeric M band. cDNA cloning, epitope mapping and
immunoelectron microscopy of two titin-associated proteins. J Cell
Sci, 106 ( Pt 1), 319-330.
Watanabe, K., Muhle-Goll, C., Kellermayer, M.S., Labeit, S. and Granzier,
H. (2002) Different molecular mechanics displayed by titin's
constitutively and differentially expressed tandem Ig segments. J
Struct Biol, 137, 248-258.
Weinert, S., Bergmann, N., Luo, X., Erdmann, B. and Gotthardt, M. (2006)
M line-deficient titin causes cardiac lethality through impaired
maturation of the sarcomere. J Cell Biol, 173, 559-570.
Williams, P.M., Fowler, S.B., Best, R.B., Toca-Herrera, J.L., Scott, K.A.,
Steward, A. and Clarke, J. (2003) Hidden complexity in the
mechanical properties of titin. Nature, 422, 446-449.
Winn, M.D., Isupov, M.N. and Murshudov, G.N. (2001) Use of TLS
parameters to model anisotropic displacements in macromolecular
refinement. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr, 57, 122-133.
Zou, P., Pinotsis, N., Lange, S., Song, Y.H., Popov, A., Mavridis, I.,
Mayans, O.M., Gautel, M. and Wilmanns, M. (2006) Palindromic
38
assembly of the giant muscle protein titin in the sarcomeric Z-disk.
Nature, 439, 229-233.
39
Figure Legends
Figure 1. Overall structure of the dimeric filament assembly of the C-
terminal myomesin fragment My12My13. (A), Ribbon representation in two
different orientations, defining the three rigid body segments: the central (My13)2
assembly, and the two distal motifs, each comprising the My12 domain and the
My12My13 connecting α-helix. The two molecules of the dimeric assembly are
shown in different colors (orange-light orange / blue-light blue). The dimension of
the overall structure and the three rigid body segments are indicated. Three
specific interface regions, including My12/helix (A), My13/helix (B) and
My13/My13 (C1, C2) are framed (right panel). The interfaces are further
illustrated in Figures 4 and 5. (B), Representative σA weighted 2Fo-Fc electron
density map contoured at 1σ, showing the sequence segments around residues
Asp1580 and Lys1588, which form a hydrogen bond in the My13 dimer interface
(cp. Figure 4) and which have been used for biochemical validation of the
structure (cp. Figure 7). The structure is shown in atom-type colors, following the
scheme of panel A for carbon atoms. (C) Superposition of the two myomesin
molecules, using the coordinates of the My13 domains as common basis. It
reveals a 29o difference of the twist angle that determines the relative rotation of
My12 and My13 with respect to each other (Bork et al., 1996). The hinge is
located at the C-terminus of the My12My13 connecting helix (green).
40
Figure 2: Sequence and structural relations of domains My12 and My13. (A)
Structure based sequence alignment. Residue pairs that structurally match are
shown in capitals, the remaining ones are in small characters. Those residues
that are involved either in interfaces with the My12My13 connecting α-helix or in
the My13 dimer assembly are highlighted in green and orange, respectively. The
secondary structural elements are shown below the respective sequences of
My12 and My13 (E, β-strand; H, α-helix). The coloring of structural elements
indicates association with the first β-sheet (cyan, ABED) and second β-sheet
(magenta, A’GFCC’). Please note that β-strand A is missing in My12, and β-
strand A’ of My12 has swapped its β-sheet association, taking the canonical I-set
arrangement of My13 as reference (Chothia and Jones, 1997). The My12My13
connecting α-helix is colored in green. The approximate consensus positions of
the secondary structural elements, common to My12 and My13, are labeled on
top of the alignment. (B), Ribbon presentation of the structural modules, My12,
My13 and the My12My13 connecting α-helix. The color codes are as in panel
(A), except for the My12My13 connecting helix, in which only the part of the
ribbon presenting fully exposed residues is colored in green. The six turns of the
helix are numbered.
Figure 3: Semitransparent surface presentation of My12 and My13. The
interface areas with the My12My13 connecting helix and the My13 dimerization
interface are colored in green and blue, respectively, demonstrating overlapping
interface areas in My12 and My13. The ribbon of each domain is in grey, except
41
β-strand A’ (yellow) that swaps in My12 in terms of β−sheet association. Those
structural elements that are involved in interface surfaces are labeled.
Figure 4: (A,B ) My12/helix and (C) My13/helix interface. Residues of the
My12My13 connecting α-helix are in green. Those side chains that are involved
in one of these interfaces are shown and labeled. Hydrogen bonds are displayed
by dashed lines. For the My12/helix interface, a surface presentation (panel A) is
also shown to indicate the complementarity of the My12 surface to interact with
residues from the N-terminal part of the My12y13 connecting helix. The two
interfaces are labeled “A” and “B” in Figure 1A.
Figure 5: My13 dimerization interface. (A), Overview, showing the My13
domain assembly in two different orientations. Upper panel, A’-A’ interface; lower
panel, A/B-A/B interface. (B), Zoom. Left panel, A’-A’ interface by intermolecular
β-sheet interactions of β−strands A’ of the two myomesin molecules. Right panel,
A/B-A/B interface formed by interactions of several residues from β-strands A
and B. The terminal residues of the sequence segments from β-strands A, A’ and
B are labeled. Side chains of those residues that are involved in interface
interactions are shown. Hydrogen bonds are indicated by dashed lines. Ordered
solvent molecules are displayed by red spheres. The color code has been
adopted from Figure 1. Labels, referring to the second myomesin molecule of the
dimer are indicated with asterisks. The two interfaces relate to those areas that
are labeled C1 and C2 in Figure 1A.
42
Figure 6. SAXS characterization and validation of the dimeric My12My13
arrangement. (A), Distance distribution plots, computed for three possible C-
terminal myomesin dimer arrangements (model-1, blue; model-2, brown; model-
3, green) that can be generated from the crystal lattice. (B), Ribbon
representations of the three models examined, using the colors of panel A for
one molecule of each dimer. The inlet table lists some of the crystallographic
model parameters and the agreement with the experimental SAXS data.
Comparison with the experimental SAXS curve of wtMy12My13 (cp. Figure 7,
Table 2) demonstrates that the best fit is calculated for model-1, which serves as
the basis of structural interpretation. Note that the distance distribution of this
model contains an additional maximum at about 6 nm (arrow), reflecting the
approximate distance between domains My12 and My13.
Figure 7: Validation of the My13 mediated dimer interface. (A), Size exclusion
chromatography of wtMy12My13 (blue), My12My13(D1580K) (orange), and
My12My13(K1588D) (red), indicating that the interaction Asp1580-Lys1588 is
essential for dimer formation. (B), Experimental SAXS data of wtMy12My13
(blue), My12My13(D1580K) (orange), and My12My13(K1588D) (red) are shown
by data points. They confirm that the interaction D1580-K1588 is essential for
dimer formation (cp. Figure 4). The calculated curves of the My12-My13 crystal
structure (dimer, blue; one protomer, black) are provided for comparison. (C),
Distance distributions calculated from the scattering curves in panel B. For one of
43
the mutants (D1580K ) the SAXS data, as indicated by the Rg and the p(r)
functions, reveal residual dimer formation in the order of 20% (Table 2). (D), Pull
down assays, using (i) wtMy12My13, (ii) My12My13(D1580K), (iii)
My12My13(K1588D), indicating that charge reversal of either Asp1580 or
Lys1588 impairs My12My13 dimer formation. In contrast, charge reversal in both
residues selected for site-directed mutagenesis (D1580K, K1588D) partially
restores the ability of myomesin to dimerize.
Figure 8: Prediction of a myomesin filament beads-on-the-string model,
consisting of 2 x 5 Ig domains that are connected by α-helical linkers and
end-to-end C-terminal assembly. (A), Beads-on-the-string presentation of the
crystal structure of the My12My13 dimeric assembly of the myomesin C-terminus
(cp. Figure 1). (B), Schematic model of the My9-My13 C-terminal filament, in
which adjacent domains are connected by α−helical linkers. (C), Prediction of α-
helical segments at repetitive sequence intervals, interspersed myomesin
domains My9, My10, My11, My12 and My13, using PredictProtein (Rost et al.,
2004). The starting residue number, the sequence interval with respect to the
previous predicted α-helical segment and the sequence of each predicted α-helix
segment are presented. Residues that are predicted to be α-helical by PROF (for
details, see PredictProtein) are shown in capital characters, those that are
predicted with a confidence level of at least 82% are shown by small characters.
The predicted helix length, using the two categories is indicated (second number
in parentheses). For comparison, the experimentally determined My12My13
44
connecting helix is highlighted in green. (D), Circular dichroism curves of
My12My13 (blue) and My9-My13 (magenta). The estimates for secondary
structural elements for My12My13 and My9-My13 are: helix, 0.23/0.19; strand,
0.26/0.36; turn, 0.18/0.13; unordered 0.33/0.34.
Table I. X-ray structure determination Crystal
Native Se-Met substituted
Data collection
Space group C2221
Cell dimensions a, b, c (Å)
61.50
87.87
113.0
61.58
88.49
203.58
Peak Inflection Remote
Wavelength 0.8126 0.98214 0.98264 0.91837
Resolution (Å) 20.0-2.24
(2.32-2.24)
15.0-3.06
(3.11-3.06)
15.0-3.06
(3.11-3.06)
15.0-3.20
(3.25-3.20)
Rmergea (%) 7.6 (38.2) 4.8 (12.8) 5.5 (16.8) 6.6 (14.1)
<I /σI> 17.8 (3.7) 21.6 (5.4) 17.4 (3.9) 13.9 (4.3)
Completeness (%) 95.7 (93.2) 94.4 (89.8) 94.2 (66.8) 95.8 (77.5)
Redundancy 4.9 2.9 2.7 3.1
Refinement
Resolution (Å) 20.0-2.24
No. reflections 25,014
Rcrystb / Rfree 19.7/22.3
No. atoms
Protein 3,489
Glycerol 24
Solvent 247
Rms Δ bondsc (Å) 0.012
Rms Δ anglesc (°) 1.380
Mean B factor (Å2) 44.7
Main-Chain Dihedral Angles (%)
Most favored 90.6
Allowed 9.1
Generously allowed 0.3
Parentheses devote values for the highest resolution shell. a Rmerge = ∑|I − I |/∑I; I, intensity. b Rcryst = ∑|Fo − Fcalc|/∑Fo; Fo, observed structure-factor amplitude; Fcalc, calculated structure-factor
amplitude. c Root-mean-square deviations from ideal values.
1
Table 2. SAXS data collection statistics of the myomesin My12My13 fragment and its mutants D1580K and K1588D
Sample My1213 My1213 D1580K
My1213 K1588D
Theoretical molecular mass (kDa)a 23.4 23.4 23.4
Experimental molecular mass (kDa)b 47 ± 4 21 ± 2 20 ± 2
Maximum size, dmax X-ray model (nm)c 14.1 10.0 10.0
Exp. maximum size, dmax Gnom (nm)d 14±1.5 13±1.5 9±1
Radius of gyration, Rg X-ray model (nm)d 3.93 2.79 2.79
Experimental radius of gyration Rg (nm)d 4.04 ± 0.08 3.30 ± 0.05 2.77 ± 0.05
Model fit, χ against raw data (monomer) 5.4 1.16 0.90
Model fit, χ against raw data (dimer) 1.58 2.80 8.6
Monomer/dimer fraction (%)e 7/93 78/22 100/0
a Molecular mass of the monomeric construct calculated from the sequence. b Molecular mass from comparison with reference solutions of bovine serum albumin. c For the D1580K, K1588D mutants: Calculations against chain A of the crystallographic model. d Maximum particle dimension and radius of gyration calculated by indirect transformation of the
scattering data using GNOM. e The volume fractions of are calculated by the best fits of the experimental data by the curves
computed from monomeric and dimeric constructs. The accuracy of the estimate is about 5 %.